Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-15-21 (2026)
Litigation Affecting State Under Direction and Control of Attorney General; Employment of Certain Assistant Attorneys General.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General. The employment of an assistant attorney general, other than an assistant attorney general employed in the office of the Attorney General, for the purpose of representing the state or any department thereof shall be by the Attorney General with the approval of the Governor, but nothing in this section shall prevent the Governor from employing personal counsel, whose compensation shall be payable out of the Governor’s Contingency Fund.
(Acts 1923, No. 64, p. 40, §4; Code 1923, §872; Code 1940, T. 55, §244; Acts 1995, No. 95-770, p. 1819, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1979–2016 · leading case: Riley v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 57 So. 3d 704 (Ala. 2010).
Riley v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 57 So. 3d 704 (Ala. 2010). “Further, under Ala.Code § 36-15-21, ‘[a]ll litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General’ (emphasis added).”
Ex Parte Weaver, 570 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1990). “Does the attorney general of the State of Alabama under his legislative mandate to direct and control litigation concerning the interest of the State or any department thereof, Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21, have the power to make substantive policy decisions contrary to the…”
Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009). “" See Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21 ("All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General.”
Harris v. State, 2 So. 3d 880 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “, Ala. Code 1975, § 36-15-21.” Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.”
Univ. of South Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999). “The Attorney General argued that he was the proper plaintiff in this action because the University is an agency and instrumentality of the state subject to the Attorney General’s authority to direct and control litigation under Ala.Code § 36-15-21 (1991 & Supp.1997). The…”
State ex rel. Alabama Policy Inst., 200 So. 3d 495 (Ala. 2015). “See also Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21 (“All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General.”
Tyson v. Jones, 60 So. 3d 831 (Ala. 2010). “’ Ala.Code § 36-15-21. In fact, the authority to superintend litigation is left in the sole discretion of the Attorney General because the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State.”
State v. $223,405.86, 203 So. 3d 816 (Ala. 2016). “”); § 36-15-21 ("All litigation concerning the interest of the state .”
Jones v. CVS Caremark Corp., 59 So. 3d 21 (Ala. 2010). “” Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21. “The Attorney General is authorized to institute and prosecute, in the name of the state, all civil actions and other proceedings necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state.”
Sanderson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 570 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1990). “” Further statutory authority is given to the attorney general in § 36-15-21: *679 “All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department thereof, shall be under the direction and control of the attorney general, and the employment of any attorneys for the…”
Quinlan v. Jones, 922 So. 2d 899 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “Code 1975, and § 36-15-21, Ala.Code 1975. We agree with Jones.”
Graddick, Attorney Gen. of Alabama v. Newman Et Al., 453 U.S. 928 (1981). “Code § 36-15-21 (1975), provides that “[a]ll litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department thereof, shall be under the direction and control of the attorney general . . . .” The Alabama Supreme Court, construing the predecessor of this statute, held that the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.